>> battle happens tonight on c-span2's booktv. >> up next on booktv, former democratic senator and senate majority leader tom daschle of south dakota presents a history of the u.s. senate and explains the specific responsibilities and operational differences between the senate and the house back. this is about an hour. >> our special guest today is a

frequent visitor to the national archives, coming with his staffd the sound off and to experience the national archives. and having observed him with his kids, who knows his history, tom daschle, a graduate of south dakota state university, served in the air force as an intelligence officer for the strategic air command, and represent south dakota in congress for 26 years, four terms in the house of representatives and three terms in the senate. elected to house in 1978, he was part of the democratic leadership before moving to the senate for three terms beginning in 1987. he was elected senate democratic leader in 1994 as one of the longest-serving democratic leaders in the senate, and the only one to serve twice as majority leader and twice as minority leader. since he left the senate in 2005, senator daschle has continued to have a strong voice among washington policy makers. each contribute to the debate over health care, change,

renewable energy, financial services reform, telecommunications and international trade issues. in 2007 he joined with three other former senators majority leaders, howard baker, george mitchell and bob dole to create a bipartisan policy center, which seeks to find common ground on the nation's most pressing issues. these days he's a senior policy adviser, and is a member of the global board. today, senator daschle will discuss his new book, "the u.s. senate," written with charles robbins. and it explains some historical detail of the 100 member body, and has works in the past, something i suspect we all wondered about at this particular time. tom daschle. [applause] >> david, thank you very much for that generous introduction.

and thank you very much for the opportunity to be your today. it is a real pleasure for me every time i come to the national archives. i moved, i inspired to in for good reason that i think the archives, under a go in the room would agree is a national treasure. and i don't know of another place in the city or maybe anywhere else where the extraordinary opportunities to witness the essence of america is more palpable, more visible and more apparent. herein lies the story of our nation. and i'm very grateful for the extraordinary leadership to david and his strong team provides, and for the opportunity to visit as we do with such routine and casual approach.

i don't how many times i've been there, and each and every time it's a memorable experience. david mentioned that the co-author, and there will want to emphasize how much of an enjoyable expense it was to work with charles robbins. he couldn't be here today, but charles is a very gifted and respected writer of many years. and it was just a pleasure to work with them. so i salute him and thank him as well. our book was just released this week. and it is an exciting month for an author to of had his work published and released as it has been again. so i celebrate that fact this week. it's all about the body of the united states senate. its history, its current circumstances and our aspirations for it as an institution. i hope you will find it to be of value. for those of you who have the

opportunity to read it. i was walking to the quarters of the senate many years ago with a friend from nebraska. it's a name, he holds a name that some of you may recognize. his name was ted sorenson. ted was a speech writer to john kennedy. and as we were walking through the marble corridors with a wonderful statues casting a shadow, i think he might've been inspired to say to me that while the national archives is the place where history is stored, it's the united states senate where our history is made. in ways large and small. today, history is being made. tomorrow, history will be made. a united states senator actually makes history at the very first

moment they come into the united states senate and are sworn in. and degradation and a long-standing practice that as a senator is sworn in, he is given a number. and that number goes all the way back to the very first senator, the first to elect from pennsylvania had the distinction of being the senators with the first two numbers, william mcclay and robert morris. numbers one and number two. we've had 1000 -- 945 united states senator in our history. and i have the fortunate distinction of holding a very special number. my number is 1776. and so i've always thought it very fondly of the extraordinary historical consequence of that number. and which each senator does with that distinction and that number

through his or her career for as long as they are there, from the very first moment you are aware of its powerful linkage really to the history going back to our founders. to the errors and gardeners of america of self governance. and ideal whose freedom we swear to uphold, and must pass on to future generations undiminished. eight years after i was sworn in, i had another good fortune to be elected the democratic leader on my colleagues -- by my colleagues. i was elected on one boat. and so with that precarious beginning i started my current not only as united states senator, but as the democratic leader in the united states senate. and i will always remember an

experience that i had shortly thereafter. i was invited by a good friend whose name was dick morris, to come and spend some time at his home in south dakota. dick was a farmer. he lives outside of sioux falls, south dakota. and on the appointed evening a couple weekends after i was elected, we had a conversation over meat and potatoes, a wonderful farm dinner, i asked dick what advice he would have for somebody elected now to this lofty position from the state of south dakota. he paused for a minute and then he said well, i guess if i had any advice for you, it would be two things. first, never forget where you came from. always remember who it was that

sent you there. and sadly, pointing at his graduate on the wall, he said you know my grandchildren eric you have held them. you know them by name. and then he looked at me and he said, give them hope. give them some hope. i went home, and later that night i got a call during the middle of the night, that the news that dick had died. that moment, locked in memory for me, the best advice i think i had ever received in public service, to remember where we came from, and give those we represent some hope. all across america our country was founded on the premise that the voters had chosen neighbors,

people like me to represent them in the united states senate, sent them to washington with great goals. best senators challenge us to focus on those cold and not lose sight of them in the daily bustle of battles. that's very difficult in today's political environment. i had two touchdowns who helped me, that helping actually stay grounded as i carry out my lofty responsibilities as majority leader. the first was to occupy what is called the leaders desk. allen knows that will. you look at it everyday as our senate parliamentarian. the leaders desk is a very special special place. it has an ink well and a

snuffbox. you pull open the drawer, and their you see the carved and written and handcarved signature of every leader who is occupied that desk. it won't surprise you that lbj is the largest and hardest carved in that drawer. but you look at that desk, and you witnessed those signatures. if that doesn't make you feel part of history, i don't know what ever will. senators who sit at those desks take on the challenge to guard and protect the liberties guaranteed in our constitution. it's the same challenge really that our soldiers take on as they fight and protect this

great republic and democracy and distant lands. for which a million men and women have given their lives in over 30 wars over that same course in history. the other distinguishing touchstone, a practice that i started when i was very early into my career as a member of the united states senate was to drive to everyone of the safety six counties in south dakota in an unscheduled way throughout the years. i would get in the car by myself and just show up and talk to people, reflecting on their challenges, their aspirations, their criticisms. and yes, their hopes. i don't know that anything inspired me more, to come back and appreciate this magnitude and the level of patriotism in pride and country that my constituents just like you

shared with me each and every time. i had the good fortune, as david mentioned, of representing my state for 20 sixers in the house and senate. a gift for which i will be a normally -- enormously grateful. but even after all these years, walking onto the senate floor gives me the same sensation as you might have in walking into a church. the majesty, the richness, the history, the hush sometimes is akin to a sacred place. and in some ways i considered it virtually a secular place. alvin barkley, the senate majority leader and once vice president was asked what does it take to be a great united states

senator? he said, well, the most important ingredient is that first you have to get elected. but in this country to get elected you don't have to be rich. you don't have to be connected or go to the right school. i was none of that. you can come from a family with a very humble beginning, third generation, from a midwestern state, the first and, as i was to graduate from college, be 30 and make your best case. ted sorenson's assertion that history is made in ways large and small is absolutely right. sooner or later every issue in the country is debated on the floor. every treaty considered. the senate joins in declaring

war, ratified treaties, confirms or reject nominees for the supreme court, the cabinet, and thousands of others executive decisions. and, unfortunately, twice convened impeachment courts for the president of the united states your. ..

he hugged him and said. and after a long, almost embarrassing hug, he let senator mitchell go and he said, you just saved my job because it had just become known he had saved a paper plant. george, the son of a lebanese immigrant janitor, could identify with that. he said it was one of the most defining moments of his time, just got home that. the constitution doesn't mention the political parties, which i'm sure most of you know. the founders didn't address

elections. james madison often described as one of the founders of the constitution actually warned again all the problems that parties could actually create. still, our country over time, which we now well know adopted the british system of competing parties, and either or approach the political process that goes all the way back to greeks. in the 1720s, the whigs and tories crossed the atlantic and they evolved into the federally same non-federalist. ultimately, involving even more to democrats than republicans. two parties are now the foundation of our american political and governmental progress. the senate chambers divided into

those two parties with a center aisle that has for a long period of time, allowed for a metaphor called crossing the aisle, which is defined over those many decades the pews is an approach to meaningful bipartisanship. he crosses the idol. the primary defining issue in my view that has been so for 100 years is what is the proper role of government? there's two very distinct philosophies and ideologies based on that the book question. what is the role of government? it plays itself out in an array of different issues each and every congress and each and every day on the floor of the senate, no more so than the debate over health care these last three years.

when i arrived in washington in 1878, congress really was a different place. we're experiencing the last vestiges of real bipartisanship. the voting rights act, housing legislation, environment campaign reform, budget issues all it fairly significant bipartisan support. but it was not long thereafter if that bipartisan coalitions virtually finished. every senator bases the judgment and finding the right balance between standing one's ground and finding common ground. and creating a dilemma, that dynamic each and every day as one senator leads the coalition ultimately to caucuses and ultimately the whole body, to

what extent was sanders grounded to the way from stealing crown to common ground? there in lies the challenge that each senator will forever be responsible for resolving. we hear a lot about the phrase checks and balances and often time that relates to the three branches of government. but in the context of the united states senate, checks and balances refers to the role of the minority checking and balancing role of the majority and to a certain extent, that has been since the beginning of the united states senate, with some exceptions. the great depression, world war ii, 60s and the great society where you had a supermajority in the senate they didn't necessitate the need for bipartisan consensus even though

in some states their website. even with such command, even with a supermajority, it's fair to say i think most senators would agree that legislation is stronger when it is truly bipartisan. howard baker, the majority leader from tennessee had a wonderful practice of doing something that i wish were to more frequently today. after one of the most vigorous debates over the divisive time in the florida senate and a final vote had been taken, he would cross over and seek out and shake the hand of his primary opponent on the other side. he said, that gesture may be as important as anything i do care on the floor at any time. in an earlier era, those personal bonds created between and among senators for much more

common than they are today. one of those illustrations of the bonds can be found in military service. when i was elected, seven of 10 members have served the military said today it is two and 10. in the old days, and military with so much a part of a senator or legislative history that there would be caucuses and breakfast and lunch is. there was a navy breakfast in the marine breakfast in the army launched a they would get together not as republicans or democrats, but members of the army. veterans of the navy, of the marines. one of the first time i had a special relationship, first republican i should say was somebody's name i know you know

well. he was one of my favorite americans i can't tell you -- that person is bob dole. he was a very poignant and, extraordinarily powerful moment a couple weeks ago. danny noa, president pro tem died and was lying in the senate rotunda. bob dole was wheeled him in his wheelchair to pay his last respects. he got out of his wheelchair and worked his way up to the casket and saluted with his good hand and then mentioned to those around him, i couldn't do that with danny sitting in a wheelchair. he and i were like good republican and democratic leaders in 1994.

he had them later. he said when we were both coming from fire states, every farmer immediately went and bought a new track here. i don't know whether that's the case, but over a long period of time, now 35 years, we've written a lot of this country roads together. one of the biggest gestures of bipartisanship accord that would bob dole, but with somebody i didn't know well until the year 2001 and that was george bush. we experienced a lot in our time in office together including 9/11. right after 9/11 he decided to make a speech to the country in a joint session of congress.

this is a very emotional time, very troubling time, very uncertain time. he gave the speech. after he came down to the dicey walk through the senate floor as the first the first to greet him and as a spontaneous gesture, but we both hugged each other on national television. both parties questioned whether that was the right thing to do. as we looked at each other, we thought, we'll probably hear from some around the country for what we just did, that it was an honest gesture a sincere effort to identify a very troubling time. much has changed in the hundred, 50, even 20 years the senate has experienced. worker three liters, abdul, trent lott.

we were liters straight one of the most troubled times. decisions by the senate to go to war in afghanistan and iraq felt it was so important that we have the ability to communicate that we set up a hotline in our offices were picked up the phone and automatically dial to only one place, the desk of the other leader because we thought it was that important to be able to communicate. the senate itself is born of great compromise. henry clay noted that all legislation is founded on the principle of mutual concession, that there are those who believe standing one's ground is often the only option. president gerald ford observed 25 years after he left public office, but unfortunately there

are those for whom consensus that dirty word, a few mistake, the clash of ideas for what he called holy water. our nation has endured confrontations, including before, during and after the civil war and you haven't seen the lincoln movie i urge you to do so because that depicts exactly the kind of confrontational spirit that we know existed during that time. that wasn't the only time. during and after world war i. during the 1960s with all of the focus on civil rights and the vietnam war. partisanship at least for many of us who didn't experience those times is that it swears that we can remember in our

lifetimes. it is why in 2007, howard baker and bob dole and george mitchell and i created a the bipartisan policy center with the hope not to have partisan debate, but to embrace at the next he should not debate can ultimately to consensus. earlier this month we came within hours of taking this country over the fiscal cliff. fortunately, it literally at the last minute, crisis was averted and today ironically as we speak, the house of representatives appears to have come to the conclusion that avoiding putting this country and national default by not addressing the debt limit is something we need to do on a bipartisan basis. the president has indicated he will support the limited

extension that they will ultimately authorize today, but again, it is an illustration to how much more we need to do in order to address the dysfunctional nature of institutions as they exist today. partisanship, rancor and gridlock plagued many presidents. harry truman made the now historic assertion that the congress with whom he had to work did nothing. teddy roosevelt submitted to congress does a third of the half of a minimum of what it ought to do and i am profoundly grateful that they get that much time. in the old days, clashes sometimes even turned violent and certainly remember the moment in 1804, literally shot

and killed treasury secretary alexander hamilton. that when we remember from our history. what you may not remember, senators backing from missouri got into a spat on the senate floor. pulled out a handgun, pointed it at the head of thomas then. i have no pistol. identifier. but the assassin fire. fortunately, they declared a recess, pulled the two apart and save the senator's life. and of course in 1856, and other famous incident from south carolina congressman preston brooks incensed by his speech by massachusetts senator charles sumner came over and came on to

the senate floor with a steel came, d. charles sumner what he had within inches his life. so by those standards, we have a very peaceful body today. no excessive demonstrations of violence or god, at least for the moment. in recent debates, the senate has become more bipartisan and more individualistic. many of traditions and folkways are feeding as we see each congress come into existence. senators, no longer, for example wait out for their time to be recognized on the senate floor to get their speech. it is to be senators would wait for months to be recognized to get that first speech.

i think four major factors have created the climate and environment within which the senate is operating or not operating as well today. the first is in some ways the most important and that is the airplane. the airplane has a lot of senators who they found her stake, comeback on tuesday a traitor government wednesday. it has been the traditions that were long part of the united states senate. when i came to the house of representatives, virtually everybody moved their family to washington. i'm told in the last couple of congress is, virtually no new senator had moved their families to washington. so the opportunity to socialize, to get to know one another have become much more limited.

and if you don't know someone, you can't trust someone. if you don't trust someone come you can't deal with someone. and if you can't deal with someone come you don't legislate with someone in an affect the way. a congressman from that part of the country, a new freshman congressmen recently rumored, a lot of freshman don't have a whole lot of knowledge about the way washington has operated. but frankly, we really don't care. it's troubling if you don't know how washington works, it's pretty hard to make washington work on behalf of the rest of the country. the second factor is the money chase. a typical senator esterase type

of dollars every single day he or she is in office. in the last cycle, there were two races for the money spent on both sides exceeded $80 million. the money chase is becoming more and more of an extraordinary problem, not only for the time it takes them in the last two years have been a six-year term, a senator would typically spend anywhere from half to three fourths of his time doing nothing but raising money. but also exacerbates the limited opportunities to get to know your other colleagues. so the money chase is becoming far more pronounced and the citizens united decision has only exacerbated the problem even more seriously. vice president mondale said it well. he said the pressure of money in

politics and its power to destroy the public trust is a threat to the senate and to the nation. i couldn't say it any better. the third factor is a combination of two things really. the redrawing of congressional districts in the power that certain constituencies have now taken upon themselves to influence the primary election process. we have redistricted insatiably throughout the country, were now approximately 400 of the 435 members of congress on so-called safe seats, either republican or democratic. the number of swing districts are diminishing by pierre. we add to that, the ability of big money and special interests to influence the primary

election process and not make the primary and is 400 seats a lot were important than the general election. and when the primary support and, guess what happens? to graduate to the extremes, right and left and therein lies the dilemma, standing one's ground for finding common ground. to find common ground for the most important election is not one requiring common ground. it has become so much of a problem with actually made dick lugar's last name a verb. dick lugar was defeated in the last election and the primary now is the reference people use, i don't want to get lugar. i don't want to get deep enough primary. i don't want to have happen to

me what happened to that extraordinary member of the united states senate from indiana. the fourth factor is the dramatic change the media has brought about. it used to be that the media was the referee, the walter cronkite's. not the media is a the participants, the rush limbaugh's and therein lies all one needs to know about the change in media today. the blogs, the cable news networks and all of the extraordinary cacophony of voices.com on a daily basis, not without some sacrifice inaccuracy i've might hasten to add has created real dilemma for policymakers today.

i would even argue as much as i am grateful for c-span that even the new transparency to c-span has brought about has changed the dynamic. it used to be senators who go to the floor as he took colleagues on the floor. today, oftentimes a senator goes to the floor and speaks to the cameras and in so doing, avoid speaking to colleagues. this camera sometimes make it more difficult to be candid, especially in negotiations. here's what i'd like to say, but i can't say it because the camera is on. it creates a negotiating process along we you can be candid. i am often asked, will it change? the answer is yes. the country is always evolving, always changing and i remain

hopeful that the change will certainly bring about more opportunities for better governance and a greater respect to the institutions to this republic. unanswered does, i hope that will change recent practiced. in the last two years, 115 cloture motions were filed when filibustered. in the two years prior, 2009 and 2010, the number was 187. to put that in proper perspective for the 50 years from 1917 to 1970, there were 45. congressional approval ratings are certainly relevant if we

consider these dysfunctional times in her institution. congressional approval is now following 10%. the more government grows dysfunctional and incapable of addressing the serious problems we face in america today, the more the quality of life of all americans suffers, the more the inspiration that we straw from this incredible experience in democracy and a republican form of government to the nations on the consequences of global dynamics as well, the more dysfunctional we are, the less competitive we can be diplomatically, economically and even in terms of our national security. the world has gone from being

interdependent to be increasingly integrated, economically and socially. an integration requires a level of leadership that emanates from the very heart of our government , the president said senate and the house. i've actually had conversations with ambassadors in recent years, were they looking at the admit, we have always taken a message in our country that we want to be like you, but it's harder for us to say that today. and therein lies our recognition of the need for change again. we simply can't afford to lower the bar in the middle east, and africa or anywhere else for the future of democracy is invalid. over the last several years, we

heard the noise of democracy at full volume. we shouldn't be surprised by. you can only imagine the degree of emotional involvement and a lot of the debates about 310 million americans could somehow be assembled. can you only imagine how many people standing their ground, how many people looking for common ground and that's exactly what happens on the floor at the united states senate everyday. the noise of democracy is not stereophonics. it's not easy to listen to, but it beats the alternative, the noise and violence we see in syria, somalia or sudan. i am encouraged by three things as they close my remarks.

i'm encouraged by the increasing number of senators elect did the pledge to their constituents that they will find common ground, or procedurally as substantively. i encouraged as well by the procedures encouraging others to call upon the congress to find common ground. i am encouraged as well by the remarkable number of young americans who are being called to public service in the military, in the halls of congress and in this administration. i was listening to npr the other day and heard a story and maybe you heard it too. the young woman who owns her shop about 150 miles from here

got up at 2:00 in the morning on monday, took a bus to washington, and arrived here a few hours later, stood in the cold weather for several hours. at some distance from the podium to witness the renewal of our democracy, got back on the bus, drove all the way back and went to work the next day. there's a wonderful story about benjamin franklin at constitution hall in the early stages of our deliberations. a crowd would always enter, a woman yelled out, mr. franklin, what will it be if you decided a

monarchy or a republic? a thought for a moment and go back to the woman, it will be a republic if we can keep it. we've been charged with keeping this republic for 200 years. there's only two ways to do it, either to fight for it or to work at it. it's incumbent upon all of us to do one or both. and no one could possibly be a more important decision than the 100 united states senators, each with their own number, each with the recognition they've entrusted to do all that we can to keep it.

thank you all very, very much. [applause] >> david, do we have time for questions? >> senator, thank you for your remarks. you mention to hazard a guess to a happen in the next 36 hours to amend the filibuster rule. if you get away from the filibuster, where if you said you're going to to do it, you have to stand your ground and do it. hasn't happened and i were threatening filibusters of females is holding a business in the senate. >> it's an excellent question and it's ironic you're talking about the senate today because they are deliberating very

issues. alan was our parliamentarian for many, many years, a man i turn to daley for advice when i was figuring he would be the best person to address the question. i'm not even sure when they totally agree on this because it is, so central and send it to the procedures. i think that there are two things that i wish we could go back to doing that we did at one time. we don't have the problem of dual tracking, where if there's a filibuster reset the villa side and take up something else. the very nature of legislation makes it less painful and less problematic and therefore her makes it easier to do business, but it lessens the filibuster and allows people to do it more

often. so i would say we're going to keep on this piece of legislation until it's resolved one way or the other. the other is a good about requiring a senator to keep the floor, to hold the floor. alan can tell us exactly what the record is, but if i recall, strom thurmond held the floor for something like 26 hours in so many minutes. how one could do that, i know i couldn't. but he did and their centers who held the floor for that length of time. we got away from that. so it seems to me there's a reason why filibusters were used so rarely before because they were such an inconvenience. people had to stalemate. george mitchell tells this wonderfully funny story about how one of the first 19

naysayer, they were subject to a filibuster and he had to find a cause and at that time, john warner was married to elizabeth taylor. george mitchell had just given up his seat on the federal bench to be the united states senator and he was lamenting all the problems he had and how convenient it would be if he was sleeping in his own bed and said john sleeping i if he was elizabeth taylor. how can i be complaining about it? but i think we lost a filibuster we need to bring back. before we go into those changes, i'd like to see if those two reversions back to the tradition of the senate could help alleviate a lot of the problems. the other thing i would do is

something called a secret hold, which is a secret threat to filibuster. again that to be one time and transparency could really be beneficial, but we don't do that either. those three things can make a big difference. >> senator daschle, thank you for the book in your thoughts. i look forward to reading your book. i wanted to bring up a topic that's maybe some of the difficulty of being a senator is busy fax letters. the anthrax letter sent to tom brokaw and tom daschle. i always wondered, the fbi solve the case. whispery ivins, a deranged sign taste. why did he send those letters and how did he pick his targets? well, he worked at dietrich and

worked on asterix and there is legislation introduced to exempt soldiers from taking the vaccine because it was a dirty vaccine. is it that vaccine. he's the one who developed the vaccine. he sent a letter. he said something like -- i memorized this letter. we have this anthrax. you are all going to die. are you scared now? why would a scientist from ohio somnath? could have been his motivation? >> is a puzzling set of his and i must say, i have a lot of very mixed feelings. there are those who suggest that mr. ivins may not even if the person responsible.

i give credit to the fbi for all of their work and bob mullins was very good about sharing his developments with me. but i have to say, what could motivate somebody to do that and whether it mr. ivins or somebody else, i guess the good news for us that the staff were exposed and not one had any lasting effects and we can be thankful for that. obviously very troubled by that experience in the realization that it could happen again, to be in a position to protect ourselves much more proactively is something we can live up to. >> bursitis by somebody else. there are other thing that death to israel and things like that.

[inaudible] >> or anything else. >> just in passing, i would like to know what instrument used to carve your name on that board. a lot is used and misused by the filibuster is another part of senate procedure that i'm kind of curious about. maybe you can invite me. i know when i'm at home and want to listen to classical music, i need is to tune into c-span senate and more often than not there's a quorum call. it happens so much. so much time is spent in map mode in the senate when it's in session and i wonder, is this serving some functional, deliberative, political purpose? is there a lot of activity going on behind those walls that i don't know about? with going on there quite

>> has the music? yes, that's a wonderful question and i'm sure so many viewers often wonder, why is there all this time spent with nothing happening. in part it has to do with the fact that the senate floor is the final stage of whatever deliberation may be taking place whether it's nomination or piece of legislation. oftentimes you find these moments where somebody is between pieces of legislation and the managers of the bill have encountered before. were times during the middle of heated negotiations and you have to call a timeout so negotiations. there's reasons for quorum calls

continue. you could adjourn and come back and following adjournment, but as alan could far more eloquently described, you aren't sure just when that will be a messy but the senate and a quorum, which is technically a calling of the role in a very slow, slow cadence to accommodate that period of time when you are prepared to take further action on the senate floor and it's not convenient to adjourn so you can come back at a later time. it happens more often than it should from a viewer point of view, but i can assure you whether it's in the cloak rooms or committee rooms or in some senate office, there's a lot of that could be going on around it and behind it. but it's probably more true at the beginning of a session at ibm. the sessions become more and

more intense and concentrated with more activities as you get closer to the end. so we'll see a lot of quorum calls in the next couple of months, but it will be in part because for not prepared to take something to the floor at this point. and i used a little jackknife and carved my name and it's typical that you fill it in with age and so i did that as well. it's not as large as lyndon johnson, but nonetheless, it is fair. i have another story that i didn't know until my grandchildren were touring the senate a couple months ago. the old senate chamber is very senate elections take place and the guy very kindly pointed out by name. you have to look carefully, but my name is engraved on the top

of the desk of one of the desks in the old senate chamber and it occurred most likely when we were voting for a leader and a just price down to hard and carved right there in the top. i don't know who it was, but i'm privileged to say i got my name carved a couple times. yes. >> have you observed any change in the congressional mood following mayor bloomberg's control group that is targeted incumbent numbers of congress and in general, what do you think is the current sense of congress on was going to be done about gun control issues? >> well, i must say i only wish we could be more domestic about her ability to address the issue. ii think the recommendations the vice president has offered to our country and to the congress

are ones that could be very enthusiastic about. i will say i think the nra has been extraordinarily powerful voice, very organized police and almost went than any other single entity has an enormous amount of influence in the way these are cast. i can't recall the last time they lost a vote on the senate floor. so i'm not as optimistic as i would like to be, but each and every time we have been in the game as tragic as it is, there is a renewed effort and renewed hope that i'm just hopeful we can take it. i think the president is exactly right in pushing this quickly because memories fade and incredible as that is to believe, it is an acknowledgment that we can't sustain the

emotional investment that we have on this issue is honest i wish we could. but we have to strike while the iron's hot and i think the president has done it. chances are better, but it's still uphill. >> senator daschle, do you see any chance for rightists and effort on climate change going forward? >> i would almost get exactly the same answer i just gave, but i think the chances are better. i wish they were even better yet. i think the president was very catalytic in bringing it up during his immaculate dress. catalytic and that it gave it pronounced attention and priority and a sense of new commitment and that's exactly what we need.